True. For abortions, I gather that there is an issue besides whether the woman wants to have the baby or not - whether the developing fetus, with the potential to become a person, has the same rights as a human. To say that one person has no right to exist simply because you don't want the hassle of having them is an extremely selfish and self-righteous thing to do. That is what I believe the core argument of pro-life/pro-choice is, not to force women to have children. (Abstinence and birth control options are always there) There's also the entire religion dimension as well.

Next off: have complete control over my own reproduction without being subjected to criticism at best, hateful comments at worst by both pro-life advocates, and people who think that all women should have children

This is what's under debate. What right do you have to tell people what they should and shouldn't say? If a man make some sexist crack, or something that even sounds like it could be remotely sexist, should he be thrown in jail or fined because of it? Better yet, what if a woman says something sexist? Do you believe she should be given the same treatment.
If not, how do you expect it to be enforced?

Don't you think to someone concerned with human rights, or against the death penalty, this statement sounds just as oppressive to them?

What is the difference, save for a differing belief structure?

The difference is that I'm not a murderer. I'm advocating for the rights of women, not the rights of murderers. Surely you see a difference, unless you believe that all women are as bad as murderers.

And I don't know where you people get off advocating that I'm trying to tell people how to think. I don't tell people how to think. However, the law should treat men and women equally. Money should not be more important than equitable treatment--otherwise you end up in a situation where if you want to have any say-so in what happens in the world, you'd better throw out a sack of gold. That's not the kind of world I want to live in, and that's the kind of world you're advocating, KK, when you say that someone who owns a company should be able to do whatever the bloody hell they want. I suppose people should be allowed to abuse pets? After all, they're their pets.

What right do you have to tell people what they should and shouldn't say? If a man make some sexist crack, or something that even sounds like it could be remotely sexist, should he be thrown in jail or fined because of it?

No, but I shouldn't be thrown in jail or fined for smacking the hell out of him.

Just kidding. But I honestly don't know why you guys are arguing for the divine right to be sexist.

Here's what I see happening: I post that people should be treated equally, and I get jumped on by you guys, who say that people have the divine right to promote the idea all women are scum and to treat them unequally, especially if the people promoting these ideas have money.

Here's what I see happening: I post that people should be treated equally, and I get jumped on by you guys, who say that people have the divine right to promote the idea all women are scum and to treat them unequally, especially if the people promoting these ideas have money.

But what do you define as equal? I asked this before, but you never responded.

Do you mean equality of outcome? Of opportunity? What?

For example, there are no rules against women playing in the NFL. (I've repeatedly asked you and others to point out where there are, and none have done so.) That means that women do have the opportunity to play, they just either choose not to or do not outperform the men who are chosen.

Another example that you have used is the birth control/Viagra one. However, most insurance companies do not cover a lot of preventative care at all (which birth control would fall under in normal cases). Impotence is a different type of condition (a dysfunction) which would fall under their normal guidelines. They are two different types of conditions/care, and so they are evaluated by different standards. Preventative care and dysfunctions have different standards in general. The only way that it would be unequal is if you singled one of them out compared to other items in the same category.

And, like I said, you always have the option of starting your own insurance company that uses different criteria. That's equality of opportunity there.

And your largest complaint has been over other people's beliefs and speech. To that, I say "Tough!" It is within their right to believe and express those opinions just like it is within your rights to believe and express your opinions. That is also equality.

The only other alternative is to try and play by the boys's rules as much as possible...become like them as much as possible...but they find that even more threatening than a woman who stays within the boundaries, but still protests. Why, I wonder, would any man find a woman who acts rather like himself to be so damned threatening? Why the need to resort to calling her derogatory names? She's just trying to get ahead in the world by the rules you all established millenia ago. Isn't that what you guys admire in each other, getting ahead by your own means?

Oh, wait, it upsets the power structure of women being weak, fragile, and acheiving their ultimate destiny as gardening mulch after they pop out 2.5 kids...silly me for missing the obvious.

To say that one person has no right to exist simply because you don't want the hassle of having them is an extremely selfish and self-righteous thing to do

What if that person took out their rage on being made to give birth on the child? Did you ever wonder why the cycle of violence in certain levels of society seems to pass on from one generation to the next? Ever think that it might be related to lack of choice in matters of reproduction? Because birth control is great if you can get it...and abstinence is just dandy if you happen to be a white, middle-class, Christian living in the burbs. Kind of hard to implement that sort of thing if you're a kid living in a poor neighborhood, though. Because the social pressures in that environment are radically different from the ones in the better areas. And the moral support you might find in more stable environments for deciding not to have sex...well, when it exists in not-so-well-off environments, it's incredibly rare.

Is this the kind of society we want to live in?

Well, it works for them, and the stupid women who decide there's nothing wrong with the system (because all of the "perks" they get in being a "girl" outweigh the harsh realities they face at some point for being born the weaker sex...or do they? )

You said it better than I ever could, particularly after a glass of wine and little sleep.

And, like I said, you always have the option of starting your own insurance company that uses different criteria.

Are you planning to give me the money to do this? I'm a teacher, remember?

This is what I mean by your promoting the idea that people with pursestrings having the power to make the rules.

It is within their right to believe and express those opinions just like it is within your rights to believe and express your opinions.

I don't tell other people how to live. By telling me how I'm supposed to behave as a woman, they're telling me how to live.

Also, do you realize that you are promoting the right to be sexist here?

I find it frightening that you don't see anything wrong with that.

Would people be so quick to promote the idea that a racist has the divine right to say "All black people are stupid" without getting smacked?

Also, there are a lot of people here who don't think I have the right to express my opinions--yet you say nothing to them.

. However, most insurance companies do not cover a lot of preventative care at all (which birth control would fall under in normal cases). Impotence is a different type of condition (a dysfunction) which would fall under their normal guidelines.

Twist it however you want. The fact is that insurance companies are supporting the divine right of old men to get erections, while they're trying to discourage women from using birth control by refusing to pay for it. The fact that Viagra is about 20 dollars per pill whereas a month's supply of birth control is only about 25 dollars, yet the insurance companies choose to pay for Viagra, is very telling indeed.

And not being able to get a hard-on is considered a "dysfunction"? So old men who have smoked for 50 years can't get laid. Cry me a river.

The day insurance companies pay for medicine for a woman's sexual dysfunction, I'll eat my computer.

Because free speech is a touchy issue with me, I have to address this:

I find it frightening that you don't see anything wrong with that.

And I find it frightening that you don't see anything wrong with saying people who want to say things you disagree with shouldn't be allowed to say them. That's censorship, plain and simple.

I don't tell other people how to live.

You want to tell them that they're not allowed to say things that offend you.

Would people be so quick to promote the idea that a racist has the divine right to say "All black people are stupid" without getting smacked?

Since when did racists not have the right to say that? It's called the First Amendment. As soon as you start limiting it to only people you agree with, you start following some nasty historical parallels.

You yourself have stated many times that there are groups of people that you dislike. By your rules, you shouldn't be allowed to say that. After all, it's offensive to them.

Also, there are a lot of people here who don't think I have the right to express my opinions--yet you say nothing to them.

But you don't think they have a right to express their opinions either, as the above paragraphs indicate. So if you're allowed to say that, than so are they. Free speech is a two-way street.

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Are you planning to give me the money to do this? I'm a teacher, remember?

This is what I mean by your promoting the idea that people with pursestrings having the power to make the rules.

Then pool together with others of a like mind. That's what a bunch of military enlisted men and officers did, formin USAA. It's now a pretty large insurance company, and provided the model for companies like Geico (which was started by a former employee of USAA). Enlisted personnel don't make much more than teachers (if that much).

I don't tell other people how to live. By telling me how I'm supposed to behave as a woman, they're telling me how to live.

Also, do you realize that you are promoting the right to be sexist here?

I am promoting the right to believe what you wish. They are free to tell you whatever they want. You are free not to listen to them.

Isn't that the sort of argument that you hear all the time about radio or TV shows? Who are you to insist that everyone must believe what you want them to? You aren't the thought police.

Would people be so quick to promote the idea that a racist has the divine right to say "All black people are stupid" without getting smacked?

They have the right to say that. Your right is to either listen or walk away. Neither you, nor anyone else, has the right to violate their rights by "smacking" them. Your rights end where their's begin.

And not being able to get a hard-on is considered a "dysfunction"? So old men who have smoked for 50 years can't get laid. Cry me a river.

I have a good friend who is 23 and married, and he also suffers from impotence. Without Viagra, he and his wife would be unable to have anything resembling a normal sex life. Would you have his insurance company deny him coverage on that?

Your stereotyping only shows your ignorance in this, not the real issues. Viagra was not originally developed for "old men who have smoked for 50 years". It was developed to deal with a real medical condition that is known to affect adult men of all ages.

If I were to post about how birth control was developed to let women act like sluts without getting pregnant, you'd call me sexist and accuse me of stereotyping. Why is it ok for you to do the same sort of thing to men? Is that your form of equality? If it is, then I want nothing of that hypocrisy.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: I'll also add that my fiance's insurance covers birth control medication for her, except for the standard copay required. If you don't want to start your own insurance company, there are those out there that will cover it for you.

You said it better than I ever could, particularly after a glass of wine and little sleep

Well, I didn't have much sleep myself...but I can't drink, so maybe that's what lent a great burst to my relative eloquence.

I have a good friend who is 23 and married, and he also suffers from impotence. Without Viagra, he and his wife would be unable to have anything resembling a normal sex life. Would you have his insurance company deny him coverage on that?

Is there any reason why anyone other than him, his sleeping partner, their parents, or you should care? Personal examples rarely function well as a compelling argument.

You're almost sounding like a woman with that one...now you have to go out and sacrifice thirty virgins to reclaim your masculinity.

Is there any reason why anyone other than him, his sleeping partner, their parents, or you should care? Personal examples rarely function well as a compelling argument.

Hold on a moment. a_g made the assertion that Viagra is meant for old men and that basically it's the men's own fault for needing it (the "50 years smoking" comment). I was simply providing a real-life counterexample to disprove her stereotype.

In the case of my friend, I found out because he mentioned it in a discussion where Viagra came up and someone else made that sort of comment. It has legitimate medical uses, and it fits many insurance companies' definitions for it to be covered as a cure for a known medical dysfunction.

While stereotypes may make for great hyperbole, they make lousy rational arguments.

If you have a problem with my posts, you are always welcome to contact another admin or the owners.

You have constantly complained about others' behavior when you find their opinions offensive. Why is it that if others find your attitudes or opinions offensive it is suddenly flaming? You complain about double standards, but refuse to see the hypocrisy in trying to "promote freedom" by imposing your will or standards on others.

I have not flamed you. I have simply attacked your position as hypocritical. There is a very big difference there. You are advocating the exact same thing that you complain about. The only difference is the topic in which you express it.

If a person comes up to you and tells you that you should be barefoot and pregnant or else you're a failure, that's sexism and wrong. But when you start throwing out stereotypes that are just as bad (Viagra being just for old men, guys can sleep around without social stigma, etc), it's ok?

Your entire argument is based not in reality, but on stereotypes. Stereotypes never represent reality as it really is. Your stereotypes of men are no less offensive and flaming of others than you claim others' stereotypes about women are.

Is there any reason why anyone other than him, his sleeping partner, their parents, or you should care? Personal examples rarely function well as a compelling argument.

And why should anyone other than a woman, her husband or their parents should care if she uses birth control or not? In "modern" society, the only real reason for both of these products is to make a small group of individuals happier. There is no reason for insurance companies to support them except that it will bring them customers.

Edit: Also, if Viagra is being used for the purpose of having children, those children, their future friends, and their future families, might also care.

A far better example would be insurance companies that provide, say, spermicide yet not the pill. Both have the same use, the only difference is the sex that uses them.

But I honestly don't know why you guys are arguing for the divine right to be sexist.

Here's what I see happening: I post that people should be treated equally, and I get jumped on by you guys, who say that people have the divine right to promote the idea all women are scum and to treat them unequally, especially if the people promoting these ideas have money.

Principal, much like you or many people on this forum would try and stop someone from getting abused - even if there was no relation between them or the abused. Saying "You have the right to freedom of speech EXCEPT about these topics" doesn't work. It's just too easy to turn that into an excuse to gain more power over people.

I think everyone here agrees that people should be treated equally, they just disagree what that means. As KK has pointed out, there is equal opportunity and equal results.

Also, if anyone here wants to argue that "women are scum", I believe they are welcome to. I also believe it is my and everyone else's right to disagree and make them look extremely stupid.

[blockquote]And, like I said, you always have the option of starting your own insurance company that uses different criteria.

Are you planning to give me the money to do this? I'm a teacher, remember?

This is what I mean by your promoting the idea that people with pursestrings having the power to make the rules.[/blockquote]This is the way speech functions in any capitalist society, and I thank God that we're still more capitalist than not (though that gets iffier each day). Certainly everyone has the right to say anything he wants (except when it's derogatory or it's demeaning or it's discriminatory or it makes someone unhappy), but those with the most cash have the loudest voices to spread their messages. And unless you're an advocate of either socialism or fascism, there's no good way to change that.

[blockquote]Is there any reason why anyone other than him, his sleeping partner, their parents, or you should care? Personal examples rarely function well as a compelling argument.[/blockquote]Is there any reason why anyone except those directly involved in a claim should care about the stipulations of an insurance policy? Is there a reason why someone not a family member or friend of someone on an insurance policy should care whether it covers, say, medecine for chronic back pain or treatment for a broken leg?

This is really proving my point--I try to promote equality for women and try to say that treating women like second-class citizens is wrong, and suddenly I'm the "thought police".

This is the type of thing that has kept women from fighting against mistreatment. They're afraid of being silenced by men who will call them "whiners", "*****es", or the "thought police".

"We have the right to be sexist! Shut up and stop whining!"

If fighting for equality for women suddenly makes me Hitler, Stalin, or Franco, it's a sad world. And as I said, it proves my point that people will go to any means to silence the opposition and keep the establishment as it is--in favor of men.

Certainly everyone has the right to say anything he wants (except when it's derogatory or it's demeaning or it's discriminatory or it makes someone unhappy)

There are folks here who are defending the divine right to treat women like crap. Obviously demeaning, discriminatory, and making people unhappy don't matter--unless, that is, you're making the conservatives unhappy, and then they can call you names if they please.

...but those with the most cash have the loudest voices to spread their messages. And unless you're an advocate of either socialism or fascism, there's no good way to change that.

Another sad commentary on the world when people can't make their voices heard because they aren't loaded.

It's even sadder since I feel like I'm the only one willing to fight against injustice. Of course it would explain why there is still injustice in the world, when so many folks think it's perfectly fine.

I don't know why people think "socialism" is so much more horrible than "injustice". Maybe because we're in love with money in society.

There are folks here who are defending the divine right to treat women like crap. Obviously demeaning, discriminatory, and making people unhappy don't matter--unless, that is, you're making the conservatives unhappy, and then they can call you names if they please.

Your posts treat men like crap. You demean men all the time and gladly discriminate against them through your stereotypes. You are what you are fighting against.

You aren't promoting equality. If you were, you wouldn't use stereotypes and labelling to get your point across.

You haven't answered a single question that anyone has asked of you. What type of "equality" are you looking for? Equality is a nice word, but unless you are willing to define it and clarify what you mean, it is just an empty word.

Why is it ok for you to stereotype men in order to make your point, but it is not ok for a man to stereotype women to make his point? Isn't your attitude just as sexist (regardless of your goals) as the one you oppose? Why is your sexism ok in the name of your undefined "equality"?

You don't seem to be able to accept the concept that people are individuals and have the right to believe and say what they want (at least free of interference from the government). How would you feel if some people tried to silence you? Oh, that's right! You already think that's happening, so you fight back in the same way!

If you really want equality, you need to either stop trying to silence others' opinions or accept that others have the exact same right to try to silence yours.

This is not the thread for explaining why I think socialism is evil; I'll do that elsewhere if you like.

Really, what I'm saying is that I'm all for societal change and a world more accepting of women's equality. But I absolutely do not think that any fight is worth the government's trampling all over basic principles of free speech. I hate communism. If the McCarthy hearings went down today, I would be one of their most vocal opponents. Basically, you'll find me a firm believer in the idea that women and men should be equal -- I think I've given plenty of evidence of that. And I absolutely do not think that the government ought ever to be able to discriminate against any group. But when it comes to depriving people of basic rights of freedom of speech or control of their cash, that is too great a sacrifice to make.

I'd say that for anything, too. I feel the government has no right to discriminate against people of different homosexualities or races or religions. But I don't think it ought to be able to prevent people from saying whatever they want, either.

I've got a husband, father and brother who adore me and don't think I treat men like crap. I think they are a better authority on that subject than you are.

And yes, my husband has seen my posts. He constantly asks, "Why do you bother arguing with these people?" I wonder the same thing myself.

Under other circumstances I might feel more like apologizing for any false stereotypes, but with the way I've been trampled on in this thread, I don't feel like offering myself up for further sacrifice at the moment.

darth-paul: I'm not a communist and I wish people would stop making me look like some sort of monster because I think people should treat each other decently--I think it is a problem that people are more concerned with their right to be mean in the name of free speech than they are with whether or not we live in a decent society. That is sad. It doesn't make me an advocate of Big Brother though.

I don't know what the solution is. However, as far as a business goes--I don't think it's unfair to say that if you run a business in America, you should have to follow certain rules, such as equal opportunity in hiring, equal treatment of employees, and not dumping crap in rivers and polluting them just because it saves you money. It's not like you're not going to reap benefits of owning a business anyway, so don't expect me to cry when the rules mean you might have to hire a woman, or a black person, or a homosexual (the exception here being, say, a Baptist church that doesn't believe in homosexuality--but I don't know why a homosexual would want to work there anyway), or when the rules mean you can't kill a bunch of innocent creatures just to save yourself a few more bucks.

You demean men all the time and gladly discriminate against them through your stereotypes

Yeah, it bites royally when you get to experience what gets dished out to the unfortunate sex, doesn't it? Reverse discrimination, while not fair, can be educational...if anyone is willing to learn from it.

Sorry, but some of us learned that we couldn't get ahead in the world by being soft and pretty and feminine and stupid (because that's the only kind of woman allowed to live), because that's not what our inner stuff is made of...so we wind up acting like the people we criticize. What else would you expect a dog to do but attack you if all you ever did was kick it in the head? And since women are pretty much akin to dogs in human society, seeing as how both are viewed as being untrainable and needing to be restrained, this is a rather apt comparison from my viewpoint.

Also, if anyone here wants to argue that "women are scum", I believe they are welcome to. I also believe it is my and everyone else's right to disagree and make them look extremely stupid

You'd only want to debate it just to prove your superiority...but I know the reality, and your not-so-sly allusion to it reinforces the notion. Women ARE scum at the end of the day...the scum on the surface of a pond that chokes up the life underneath the water...and that needs to be removed. So, women are scum...but not the kind of scum that are necessarily seedy...but are viewed as ugly and choking and a detriment, and must be eliminated. You might deny it, or might confirm it in some peculiar fashion, but I know the truth when it cuts my throat.

Hold on a moment. a_g made the assertion that Viagra is meant for old men and that basically it's the men's own fault for needing it (the "50 years smoking" comment). I was simply providing a real-life counterexample to disprove her stereotype

Well, forgive a dyke for not knowing its place, but I do have to point out that the words "Would you have his insurance company deny him coverage on that?" made it sound like you were trying to plead for tolerance on your friend's part. You made your point by mentioning your friend and his age...the other statements weren't necessary to push your argument across. But a matter of semantics in the end, I suppose...

Sorry, but some of us learned that we couldn't get ahead in the world by being soft and pretty and feminine and stupid (because that's the only kind of woman allowed to live), because that's not what our inner stuff is made of...so we wind up acting like the people we criticize.

Derth: Good post. And yes, that's pretty much what happens--or at least how it's happened for me.

Of course then when we act aggressively, we get criticized worse than men who act aggressively do. People defend the right to be sexist while calling us hypocrites for complaining about it.

I've got a husband, father and brother who adore me and don't think I treat men like crap. I think they are a better authority on that subject than you are.

All I have to judge your staements by are the statements you make here. I'm sure that many of the people here that you have accused of being sexist could say that they have a wife/girlfirend, mother, sisters, etc who adore them and don't think that they treat women like crap.

Your stereotyping does treat men like crap. If you expect people to treat you as an individual and not as a stereotype, then you need to treat others the same. At least in this thread, you haven't.

Under other circumstances I might feel more like apologizing for any false stereotypes, but with the way I've been trampled on in this thread, I don't feel like offering myself up for further sacrifice at the moment.

Then let me try to sum up what I have been saying all along.

I find your goals laudable. I sare the goal of equality for everyone. I've stated that many times.

I find your methods to obtain those goals abhorrant. Your methods would make you as bad as what you claim to fight against. You complain about your rights being trampled, but take no thought of trampling others' rights in the exact same way.

Yeah, it bites royally when you get to experience what gets dished out to the unfortunate sex, doesn't it? Reverse discrimination, while not fair, can be educational...if anyone is willing to learn from it.

Then it isn't equality that you are advocating. That's called vengence. All that will do is encourage a cycle of hate.

I have long been an advocate of equality for everyone. If you go back through numerous threads in the Senate on topics like Affirmative Action, I have alwyas advocated an end to any unnecessary discriminatory (and requiring "necessary" ones to be documented and clearly justified, such as in casting for a movie).

Vengence will never be a good basis for understanding.

Well, forgive a dyke for not knowing its place, but I do have to point out that the words "Would you have his insurance company deny him coverage on that?" made it sound like you were trying to plead for tolerance on your friend's part. You made your point by mentioning your friend and his age...the other statements weren't necessary to push your argument across. But a matter of semantics in the end, I suppose...

My point was that he has a valid medical condition. If it were the other way around, and my friend were female with a dysfunction of some kind that the insurance company refused to cover, a_g would raise a fuss (like she has in the past). It is hypocritical to say that you are calling for gender equality but then change your position basedon a person's gender.

Birth control and Viagra are two separate categories of drugs, and so they are treated differently. The test to determine if they are unequal in their treatment is not to compare between categories, but to compare with other drugs in the same category.

Of course then when we act aggressively, we get criticized worse than men who act aggressively do. People defend the right to be sexist while calling us hypocrites for complaining about it.

I have only called your actions hypocritical when you have advocated silencing those who disagree with you. You are free to your opinion, but you are not free to silence others.

I would argue that pregnancy is a medical condition that one has the ability to avoid given the proper treatment. The problem with arguing that impotence is a medical condition whereas preventing preganacy is that this arguement has been used repeatedly to keep insurance companies from paying for birth control even when it is used to treat other medical conditions. Personally, I do not see the difference between treating female fertility and treating male sexual disfunction because the end result is the same--the enjoyment of their full sexuality.

Then it isn't equality that you are advocating. That's called vengence. All that will do is encourage a cycle of hate

Were you really expecting anything less? Or were you making the assumption that a woman's innate nuturing capabilities should always override any feelings of anger she might have? First of all, you'd have to prove women have anything of innate nature...then, you'd have to rationally explain how anyone should be expected to "turn the other cheek" and adopt a quality of mercy that makes them rise above those who did the oppressing. Isn't that basically asking women to become Gandhi clones?

I would argue that pregnancy is a medical condition that one has the ability to avoid given the proper treatment

One could also step up to the plate and say that impotence is a medical condition that is avoidable. Because many of the cases stem from causes that are organic and relatively easy to correct (diabetes, high blood pressure, psychological factors, obesity). I'm not claiming to be anything close to an expert, but I learned enough about it in the time when I needed to understand the condition better. I was actually rather shocked to see how many personal accounts of both men AND women contained mentioned of what actually caused the impotence to take place. What really came across in many of those accounts was the number of men who were suffering from psychological impotence (mentioned by their wives/SO's as being diagnosed in most of the cases), but absolutely refused to believe that there was anything other than a physical cause. And they were insisting on that little blue pill as their only salvation. Nothing else. And that's the real reason why insurance companies will always readily cover Viagra and its like...because more than enough of their customer base has the money and the buying power in numbers to demand that it be covered.

As for the notion that women could practise birth control by practising abstinence, I could say the same thing about men. That might also take care of the impotence problem for a lot of them, since one of the things I read during my researching days was that many men who suffer from ED actually report having no problem achieving an erection by themselves. So, maybe the problem is that you're having sex with the wrong woman...or with women in general.

This leads to a curious thought...what if the primary and lurking cause of male and female sexual dysfunctions is repressed anger towards the other sex? I know, it sounds weird, but if you think about it, many of both sexes report having very little to no trouble acheiving the desired results on their own. But with a partner...nothing happens. Not this has anything to do with the original thread topic...but maybe it does in some weird way, because so much of what is plaguing society nowadays is pent-up aggression, and aggression towards the opposite sex has always been one of the most pervasive constants in human society.

Okay, everyone stop having sex with each other NOW. Failure to do so could lead to complete and total annhilation of the human race.

Were you really expecting anything less? Or were you making the assumption that a woman's innate nuturing capabilities should always override any feelings of anger she might have? First of all, you'd have to prove women have anything of innate nature...then, you'd have to rationally explain how anyone should be expected to "turn the other cheek" and adopt a quality of mercy that makes them rise above those who did the oppressing. Isn't that basically asking women to become Gandhi clones?

Boy, what a way to put words in my mouth, don't you think?

And here I actually was trying to take people at face value. You and a_g said that you wanted equality. Last I checked "equality" was not a synonym for "revenge". IF revenge is what you want, then don't lie and call it equality.

Like I said before, I have long been an advocate of equality for everyone. Why am I guilty for the crimes of my ancestors or my gender? Your quest for vengence (let's just call it what it is) doesn't achieve anything worthwhile. It doesn't make the world a better place, nor does it win you allies among people like me who actually share the same stated goals.

It is hypocritical to claim to want equality when your real goal is vengence. No matter what the behavior of other people in the past, you cannot escape the plain fact of your own hypocrisy.

sorry that this is not exactly on the current topic, but this thread is really driving me crazy, and it shall probably be my last post.

1.If any employer has the choice between hiring a man and hiring a woman, and all other things being equal, chooses to hire the man because the woman is of child-bearing age, married and "might" get pregnant and want maternity leave, the employer should be taken to the cleaners in court.

the employer has a very plausible reason for that. it is possible that she will have a baby, therefore she would have to take maternirty leave. making the employer have to pay someone for not working. it's about the employer getting production out of the employee. if she is in fact married, then the chances of the couple mating are very high.

2. Women should only have children or take their husbands' last names if they want to. They should not feel obligated to in any way.

agree with you 95%. in no way would i ever force (if i ever did get married) my wife to have a baby, or take my last name, if she didn't want to. and if someone asked her why she didn't have kids yet, she could say "because WE don't want any at the moment." it should be a joint desicion.

3. Birth control should be readily and easily available, and women should be educated on how to use it. Abortions should be available during first trimester with no questions asked.

birth control sure. but since i believe in abstenance, and i think killing a living growing human being is wrong, then i will have to say i disagree with you on the abortion. and when i say abstenance i don't mean just women.

All young girls should be taught self-defense in school in order to avoid being taken advantage of by machismo men.

that's entirely up to the parents. and self defense courses don't stop them from getting into those situations, where they would need it, unfourtunatly.

4. Women should be able to dress however they want. If men can take off their shirts in public, we should be able to take off ours. Complaining about Brandy Chastain stripping down to her sports bra was the ultimate in hypocrisy. How many men take their shirts off when they're hot?

i disagree with you here as well. i believe in modesty for both men and woman. and never take my shirt off in public.and definetly don't appreciate it when other men do.

5. We need to get rid of gender roles. If a guy wants to play with Barbies, let him. Ditto if a girl wants to play with Matchbox cars. Guys should be taught to clean bathrooms and do dishes, and should be taught that they are not too good to do it, and that it is not "women's work". Girls should be taught to mow grass and take care of their own cars.

growing up i did play barbies with my sister. usually i would use my star wars figures. and likewise we would use matchbox cars together. each of us kids had chores that we alternated, whether it was dusting, doing the dishes, vacuuming, or whatever. i have no problem sewing or doing the laundry on my own. and all the kids participated when it was time to rake the lawn as well. most of the time my dad mowed the lawn. and my father worked on the car in the driveway, where anyone was welcome to watch and learn. and i do cook quite a bit.

6. Paying on a date should be determined by who initiated the date and who is making the most money, not who has a penis.

i can't really speak for myself. but my sister does not let her boyfriend pay just because he is the male. and i agree with that. both of them are in college, and neither one can afford to pay for the both of them.